This article is from the source 'guardian' and was first published or seen on . It last changed over 40 days ago and won't be checked again for changes.

You can find the current article at its original source at http://www.theguardian.com/world/2014/jul/17/coalitions-asset-recycling-scheme-watered-down-in-senate

The article has changed 4 times. There is an RSS feed of changes available.

Version 1 Version 2
Senate changes to 'asset recycling' scheme rejected Senate blocks government's 'asset recycling' model
(35 minutes later)
The Abbott government has rejected key changes to its “asset recycling” scheme imposed by the Senate, including an amendment that would prevent the transfer of $3.5bn from the Education Investment Fund to the infrastructure-incentive pool. The Senate has refused to allow the Abbott government to proceed with its desired model for an “asset recycling” scheme, insisting on key changes including greater powers to block incentive payments and removing one of the funding sources.
On Friday the Senate voted for amendments that would prevent the transfer of $3.5bn from the Education Investment Fund to the infrastructure-incentive pool. The government argued blocking this transfer would make the fund unviable.
The government wants to provide incentive payments to state and territory governments that sell assets and use the proceeds to build “nation-building infrastructure”. The top-up provided by the federal government will be 15%.The government wants to provide incentive payments to state and territory governments that sell assets and use the proceeds to build “nation-building infrastructure”. The top-up provided by the federal government will be 15%.
The Senate passed the government’s legislation on Thursday night but only after agreeing to significant amendments. One of the limitations would be that the upper house could veto proposed incentive payments to the states. The Senate passed a modified version of the government’s legislation on Thursday. When the bill returned to the House of Representatives for approval, the government used its majority to reject key amendments.
Labor also won adequate support for an amendment to ensure those infrastructure projects worth more than $100m were assessed by Infrastructure Australia with a published cost-benefit analysis. The legislation came back to the Senate on Friday where the government leader, Eric Abetz, failed to win support for a motion to back away from the contentious amendments. Motoring Enthusiast Ricky Muir and the three Palmer United party senators sided with Labor and the Greens to defeat Abetz’s motion that the Senate not insist on the changes.
But when the bill returned to the House of Representatives for approval, the government used its majority to reject key amendments. One of the Labor amendments would ensure those infrastructure projects worth more than $100m were assessed by Infrastructure Australia with a published cost-benefit analysis.
According to reasons presented to the house, the removal of clauses that allowed for the transfer of $3.5bn from the Education Investment Fund to the Asset Recycling Fund “prevents the transfer of necessary assets from the Education Investment Fund, without which the Asset Recycling Fund will not be viable for the purposes for which it is to be established”. Abetz said the asset recycling legislation was an “essential part” of the government’s agenda to build the infrastructure of the 21st century and create jobs, and it was important that the fund be able to operate without the particular impediments proposed by the Senate.
One of the changes made by the Senate would ensure the government could not grant particular incentive payments without using a legislative instrument. This effectively meant the Senate could “disallow” any particular incentive. But the Labor senator Doug Cameron said the requirement for a proper cost-benefit analysis was in line with previous Coalition rhetoric about the need for checks and balances on the spending of billions of dollars in public money.
This was rejected by the government in the House of Representatives. “The amendments would create a disruptive and unnecessary process that would mean the states would have no confidence that the commonwealth would make payments in accordance with already signed national partnership agreements,” the government document said. “The proposal to use disallowance mechanisms against payments to the states would block or delay funding from the Asset Recycling Fund for critical infrastructure.” The government was also angry about the removal of clauses that would have allowed for the transfer of $3.5bn from the Education Investment Fund to the Asset Recycling Fund. According to a government statement presented to the house, this amendment would prevent “the transfer of necessary assets from the Education Investment Fund, without which the Asset Recycling Fund will not be viable for the purposes for which it is to be established”.
The standoff will have to be resolved when the bill returns to the Senate again. Another change made by the Senate would ensure the government could not grant particular incentive payments without using a legislative instrument. This effectively meant the Senate could “disallow” any particular incentive.
The disallowance procedure was rejected by the government in the House of Representatives.
“The amendments would create a disruptive and unnecessary process that would mean the states would have no confidence that the Commonwealth would make payments in accordance with already signed National Partnership Agreements,” the government document said. “The proposal to use disallowance mechanisms against payments to the states would block or delay funding from the Asset Recycling Fund for critical infrastructure.”
Labor’s transport spokesman, Anthony Albanese, earlier said the upper house would not be able to “stop states selling a hospital to build a road” but it would be able to prevent an incentive payment being made for such a transaction.Labor’s transport spokesman, Anthony Albanese, earlier said the upper house would not be able to “stop states selling a hospital to build a road” but it would be able to prevent an incentive payment being made for such a transaction.
“What it doesn’t allow is an open-slather attitude towards privatisation with no accountability,” he said.“What it doesn’t allow is an open-slather attitude towards privatisation with no accountability,” he said.
The government criticised the amendments during the Senate debate. The finance minister, Mathias Cormann, said: “These amendments only add red tape with no additional benefit. These additional amendments are about increasing duplication.” The government criticised the amendments during the Senate debate on Friday. The finance minister, Mathias Cormann, said: “These amendments only add red tape with no additional benefit. These additional amendments are about increasing duplication.”
The Senate passed a Greens amendment opposing the use of the fund for privatisation of essential services. The Greens also secured Senate support to add the words “encouraging privatisation” to the original name of the legislation, the asset recycling fund bill.The Senate passed a Greens amendment opposing the use of the fund for privatisation of essential services. The Greens also secured Senate support to add the words “encouraging privatisation” to the original name of the legislation, the asset recycling fund bill.
The Greens senator Scott Ludlam said the bill “would create a toll-roads slush fund at the expense of investment in public transport, and at the expense of revenue-generating publicly owned state assets”.The Greens senator Scott Ludlam said the bill “would create a toll-roads slush fund at the expense of investment in public transport, and at the expense of revenue-generating publicly owned state assets”.
“State governments should not be bribed with incentive payments to sell off public assets in public hands and the Greens will fight this move all the way,” Ludlam said.“State governments should not be bribed with incentive payments to sell off public assets in public hands and the Greens will fight this move all the way,” Ludlam said.